I am suggesting your motives in this are less than pure and it's mainly about getting shot of safe guards and making out like bandits.
These threads would move along much more smoothly if people spent less time worrying about perceived "motives"
By the time we are out of the EU I'll be pretty much retired, there'll be no time to "make out like a bandit". For 10 years my job has been constrained by excessive and irrelevant EU regulations. I have a global client base and my competitors are global, neither group care about or are bound by EU rules. My biggest European client is in Lichtenstein (where EU citizens put their money to avoid EU "protections" aka needlessly complicated and over bearing regulations).
I care about Sovereignty very much, in fact it's probably my number 1 issue.
It's a few pages back but probably lost in the debate 😉 happy to repeat here.
The Casey report on racial segregation has some startling paragraphs and the EU Referendum imo had a bit of a protest vote about that too although a lot of that wasn't directly attributable to the EU, freedom of movement had made that worse however and in many respects was just "pouring gas on the fire"
Yep read that the first time, doesn't change much especially when you couple it with the piece from the Guardian where leave voters were much more certain that they would not accept a Brexit that negativly impacted them. Even UKIP supporters are stepping back from hard brexit due to the negative impact on them finacially. This is the point where the new car smell has gone and you work out what you really got. The speed at which the amazing promises were rolled back and abandoned mean TM etc. will have a really tough job selling a vision of Brexit to the people and parliamnet. Got to remember Jamby you are on the extreme side of the Brexit vote which appears from your posts to be the at any cost must leave the EU, the loose collective rabble that voted leave are spread across a wide range of views many of which are not compatible with each other.
I care about I care about Sovereignty very much, in fact it's probably my number 1 issue. very much, in fact it's probably my number 1 issue.
Interesting. Probably why I can't understand your motives - I'm not a very good nationalist you see. For me a nation is a good way of picking sporting teams, or having a national drink or national dress. As a Scot we pretty much have those already - although some of our sporting teams ain't what they once were. Beyond that they're just trading blocs to me. The fondness of countries for armies means that a supra-national body to dampen jingoistic zeal is often a good thing, and a court that is exposed to many law making processes similarly has advantages. Countries in the mid-20th century style are part of the past.
And for all that I regard myself as the greater patriot than the flag waving my country first type. It's just my belief is in a culture not a power bloc.
And before I forget, that culture is a living interacting thing that assimilates and disseminates, lends and borrows, evolves with other cultures.
Not sure the Brexies understand the evolving culture thing.
Not sure the Brexies understand the evolving culture thing.
indeed
Bexit is all about clinging onto a past (that never existed)
you cant stop the world from changing around you, no matter how hard you wish for it
or xenophobia kimbers - don't forget the xenophobia!
@tj you live under a misunderstanding, a Free Yorkshire will not be a republic. If you'd been reading the miss named and deluded Scotish indy thread of some time ago, it was made clear that the great one would be King. Geoffrey Boycott has the answers to all things Yorkshire requires.
As to TTIP or its US/UK equivalent, it'll be based on more golf courses for the Donald (the US Geoffrey Boycott).
I still haven't seen a decent answer to the question of exactly what is wrong with people in Brussels deciding some of our laws or people in Strassbourg ruling on some of our cases. Some of whom are British anyway.
Would you think it's a good idea for say Texas to complain about pepole in Washington making their laws? Or Munich complaining about those in Berlin?
I still haven't seen a decent answer to the question of exactly what is wrong with people in Brussels deciding some of our law
Personal opinion here.
The UK has had such a stand offish approach to the eu over the years that rather than get stuck in and involved we have stood at the side and complained. It leads to the eu "imposing" stance where other countries accept that they jointly reached the decision.
Would you think it's a good idea for say Texas to complain about pepole in Washington making their laws?
Interestingly they do.
@molgrips, thats a good question.
Texas folk do complain about Washington law makers (the reason for Trump?) but the work under a Common Law system rights of the citizen.
I suspect but have no proof that Munichers complain about Berlin lawmakers in the same way as Manchester complains about them scummy MP's at Westminster. The law in Germany (and almost all of Europe but not UK) is civil law, that is the state grants the rights. As opposed to common law in the UK which is based on rights won from the state.
As such I can see an argument for saying that a legal system of one type would find it difficult to rule on that of another, due to fundamentally different foundations.
Alternatively I could be talking bollox. In a free Yorkshire keep it simple, If yer float yer guilty, and if yer sink it's oops sorry.
Interestingly they do.
And that [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements ]"brexit"[/url] didn't end well.
In 1861, a popular referendum voted to secede, making Texas the seventh and last state of the Lower South to do so.[5][7][8] Some wanted to restore the Republic of Texas, but an identity with the Confederacy was embraced. This led to the replacement of Texas themes for the most part with those of the Confederacy, including religious justification given in sermons, often demanded by petitioners.[6] The transference to the Stars and Bars was in the hope of achieving the inclusion perceived by some to be denied by Washington.[7] However, that shift was never complete. Clayton E. Jewett wrote in Texas in the Confederacy: An Experiment in Nation Building that its identity remained somewhat separate from the rest of the Confederacy. James Marten wrote in Texas Divided: Loyalty and Dissent in the Lone Star State, 1856–1874 that it battled between loyalty to the Confederacy and dissent and its ambivalence may have been enough to assure Southern defeat.[7]During the war, Texas was spared most of the actual fighting, with only Galveston seeing any military engagement with Union forces. However, the war did take a serious toll in the way of chronic shortages, absence of men at home to run the economy, military setbacks and fear of invasion.[7] Although Lincoln recognized Texas's history as an independent nation, his definition of the Union meant that Texas forever ceded this to be subject to the Constitution.[1]
, If yer float yer guilty, and if yer sink it's oops sorry.
Farage is definitely a floater, one that just won't flush
[quote=igm ]I care about I care about Sovereignty very much, in fact it's probably my number 1 issue. very much, in fact it's probably my number 1 issue.
Interesting. Probably why I can't understand your motives - I'm not a very good nationalist you see. For me a nation is a good way of picking sporting teams, or having a national drink or national dress. As a Scot we pretty much have those already - although some of our sporting teams ain't what they once were. Beyond that they're just trading blocs to me. The fondness of countries for armies means that a supra-national body to dampen jingoistic zeal is often a good thing, and a court that is exposed to many law making processes similarly has advantages. Countries in the mid-20th century style are part of the past.
And for all that I regard myself as the greater patriot than the flag waving my country first type. It's just my belief is in a culture not a power bloc.
here here...
Sovereignty is an artificial construct, much the same as religion, manipulated by clever men as a means to influence the masses with the aim of achieving more power.
Beware UK law - it may not exist. E&W law, Scots law etc
There are significant State vs Federal tensions in the US and as we said before they had a civil war to create a single country.
The EU is corrupt, inefficient and staggeringly incompetent. it is by design anti-democratic. It's a problem for them to be in charge of anything.
As for sovereignty the French people saw the dangers in the Maastrict treaty and the Referendum to approve it was passed 51/49 and of course the Danish rejected it. In 2005 both the French and the Dutch voted against ratifying an EU constitution. When people are given a clear choice on EU matters they tend to vote against and to protect their Sovereignty.
Sovereignty - so 20th century
Jambas, given the EU success in stimulating trade in G&S and the personal benefits that you and I and our families - its hard to reconcile you arguments re global trade/clients and the desire to be part of a protectionist, isolationist movement that seeks to reduce freedom of movement in the key factors of production. Its an illogical stance IMO.
Finance in particular has been a major beneficiary.
The[s] EU [/s] Brexit process is corrupt, inefficient and staggeringly incompetent. it is by design anti-democratic. It's a problem for them to be in charge of anything.
How id the EU undemocrsatic? All decisions are either taken or ratified by either directly elected people or by representatives appointed by democratically elected governments.
its actually far more democratic than our system where we can get governments with a majority of representatives on a minority of the vote and where we have people in government appointed by the church or there because their ancestors were french military who invaded.
but 1000% desire to stay totally British
That needs to be on the side of a bus.
The EU is corrupt, inefficient and staggeringly incompetent
Those are compliments compared with war-mongering, isolationist, monarchist.
The fact the EU commission can override the parliament (and has done) and the direct consultation/access lobby groups have to the Commission (which the population doesn't) makes the EU a less than perfect democracy. No worse than Westminster.
The EU is corrupt, inefficient and staggeringly incompetent.
Better than our lot though. I doubt we'd have had half the environmental protection laws we do if we hadn't been in the EU.
The fondness of countries for armies means that a supra-national body to dampen jingoistic zeal is often a good thing
I do find it slightly odd that at the same time as everybody was getting agitated about the Chilcot Report, about how we were taken into a ill-thought-out war by a single overzealous PM with not enough oversight to slow him down, everyone was also railing against the idea of an EU army.
Given no country really does anything military by itself any more, and the huge efficiency, oversight and accountability improvements you could make, it seems like a surprisingly good idea to me...
I'd happily have the EU run all military affairs, macroeconomics, foreign policy, environmental protection, emplyment rights etc. Devolve everything else down a level then national parliaments as they exist now become redundant
Europe instead of being 28 / 27 states becomes a federation of around 60 states as most countries in the EU would be happier split up.
Belgium can go to flemish and walloon states, The netherlands can split up into a couple of states, Germany - bavaria could stand on its own, Italy could split in two or 3. catalonia and the basque country become states in their own right and of course the UK can split back to its constituent parts.
The Mash has it right again.
I'd happily have the EU run all....macroeconomics,....
Wow! How bad does the track record have to be?
You cannot separate issues in that way - EU history has shown that clearly.
Given no country really does anything military by itself any more, and the huge efficiency, oversight and accountability improvements you could make, it seems like a surprisingly good idea to me...
You'd never get a consensus on action though. Leading to the situation where troops from one state were being sent to die by people from another. It'd never work in practice.
Leading to the situation where troops from one state were being sent to die by people from another
Isn't that how NATO works in essence - an attack one and everyone else piles in.
Isn't that how NATO works in essence - an attack one and everyone else piles in.
Like Afghanistan? and how Luxembourg sent nine people?
exactly who attacked a nato country in Afghanistan?
EU foreign policy and military track record ? Balkans and Ukraine ? Why would you put them in charge of those things when they can't run border/passport control or the money (€) ?
TMH you keep saying the EU has helped us, certainly not me it's been a monumental pita regulatory wise vs my competitors in US and Asia who can generate higher returns for their clients than can I. European clients often prefer to invest via an offshore (non-EU) fund. Services are zero rated under WTO tarifs, the issue is whether the EU allows financial services to be sold accross border. We are all allowed to have a Phillipines or Indian call center but not investment advice for example.
In any case I am ok with the tariff free trade as I have said many times there is no need for freedom of movement of people or a Parliament or a court which has jurisdiction over anything than trade disputes.
I understood that it was the US, a NATO member, who were attacked by al-Qaeda organised from Afghanistan.
Russia nicking Crimea seems to have not had any other country with it.
Talking of wars, Yorkshire still has scores to settle over what colour rose is best.
Nipper -and funded by Saudi
exactly who attacked a nato country in Afghanistan?
individuals belonging to the world-wide terrorist network of Al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and protected by the Taleban regime in Afghanistan.
which is why the NATO council [u]unanimously[/u] confirmed the invocation of Article 5
http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2006/issue2/english/art2.html
we cover some ground on ere.
TMH you keep saying the EU has helped us, certainly not me it's been a monumental pita regulatory wise
Ability to operate across EU under single passport is MASSIVE and OBVIOUS
Think of the capital implications
presume you'd be happy to be repatriated?no need for freedom of movement of people
presume you'd be happy to be repatriated?
Happy to apply for a visa or just use typical 90 day stays. Have relatives with property in Florida who do just that, they have no permanent right to remain.
Bob send the nutcase to jail for a long time. BTW he was not looking for EU citizens he's Islamphobic
Telegraph has picked up on the obvious wheeze from the EU that all EU citizens in the UK should be under the jurisdiction is EU law. It was a legitimate or humanitarian offer, it's a p.ss taking attempted power grab.
[quote=jambalaya ]Bob send the nutcase to jail for a long time. BTW he was not looking for EU citizens he's Islamphobic
Still symptomatic of the current bad feelings that are being fueled by the media
